As I said a few days ago, it probably has been my mistake not to respond to attacks by North-American literary groups (with fascist components).

In a piece titled "Lonely Britches Presents: Model Minority Mutiny!" (May 27, 2015), Sade Murphy shares a "communique" signed by a group of "Asian/Asian American poets, writers and translators regarding recent anti-blackness they have witnessed in the poetry community".

The letter/communique is signed by Grace Shuyi Lieu, Eunsong Kim, Ginger Ko, Ching-In Chen, Chiwan Choi, Michelle Lin, Kenji C. Liu, Melissa R. Sipin, Kazumi Chin, Jay Santa Cruz, Muriel Leung and Soleil Ho.

Before responding to their erasure and mis-characterization of my identity, ideas and work, I want to say I agree with many things they are saying in their piece.

Since day one of my participation in events organized by North-American experimental communities, my work has permanently questioned imperialism-xenophobia (they are indivisible), so I find it strange (and unfortunate) that groups like the Mongrel Coalition or this Asian/Asian-American collective target and try to portray me as "anti-black". I think this is an attempt to silence me because I have been addressing the Mongrel Coalition's Anti-Mexican xenophobic episode and threats (and other things...)

This is how they are representing me:
"We want to point out that Low’s piece was not the only article that fails to disaggregate racism, specifically anti-blackness, in poetry. In “solidarity” she pointed to another piece of writing by a non-black poc more willing to critique the energies of an anonymous twitter handle than the anti-black works of two prominent gatekeeping “poets.”"
First of all I am not playing the North-American game of pretending I don't know this part of the text is really a defense of the Mongrel Coalition (see the link up there to show how one of the writers signing publicly identifies with Mongrel Poetiks).

And it also is an attack against me (a retaliation) because I wrote that the Mongrel Coalition's xenophobic tactics and violence replicates the kind of violence that the USA submits the rest of the world (and tries to make it a "Poetiks")--just trying to crush anybody that doesn't play by their rules and obeys them (=North-Americans telling the rest of the world "how-to").

So this is my first observation: their so-called decolonial statements contradict themselves by choosing to attack Southern-dissidents through very questionable tactics of disinformation and verbal violence. 

The Model Minority Mutiny piece says that Trisha Low wrote in "solidarity" (with me?), but I don't find the word "solidarity" in Low's piece nor do I personally feel the "solidarity". Low is mostly defending her (literary) "family" and I am not part of that. I don't agree with her "family" nor with her arguments.

What Low calls her "family" (Goldsmith et al) is what I call imperialistic-experimental-poetics: North-American expansionism turned "poetics".

Low's piece did not name me. And this is something that the Grace Shuyi Lieu, Eunsong Kim, Ginger Ko, Ching-In Chen, Chiwan Choi, Michelle Lin, Kenji C. Liu, Melissa R. Sipin, Kazumi Chin, Jay Santa Cruz, Muriel Leung and Soleil Ho's piece repeats.

Instead they mis-characterize me in this way: "a non-black poc".

(For those outside the US, "poc" means "Poet of Color", which is the way North-Americans classify non-white poets).

This neoliberal lingo (through which people are classified and handled as erratic and brief information) is something very aggressive, though I don't think North-Americans see that. The North-American government bureaucratic language has naturalized this language, so they are just re-producing it.

And by saying I am a "a non-black poc" they are:

1. Imposing on me (a foreigner) a North-American label that denies and replaces my own cultural identities.

2. Inferiorizing me by saying I am "a non-black poc", which in the general negative tone of their mis-characterization amounts to say "a poc" which is not black and whose positive identity is not worthy to name (by the name we give ourselves--though, again, I don't expect most North-Americans to see the importance of doing this).

3. By all of this, they are implying or, at least, leaving as a reading possibility, to portray me as a less valid "poc" to speak, an inferior agency, inferior to them and black poets (and by extension inferior to white poets, that is, non-color-poets I guess): a "poc" in the lowest level of their "poetry" world.

So, I am not "a non-black poc" but heriberto yépez, a Mexican writer. (And if you really care to be  more precise, a writer from Tijuana, which is a resistance against Mexican and North-American hegemony) (But this is too much information, I know, this falls outside the sphere North-Americans "poets" care about). 

And then they also mis-represent what I did, which they portray as: "another piece of writing by a non-black poet more willing to critique the energies of an anonymous twitter handle than the anti-black works of two prominent gatekeeping 'poets'".

By saying I am "more willing to critique the energies of an anonymous twitter handle..." they are ignoring or hiding the fact that I have repeatedly in the past written that Vanessa Place and Kenneth Goldsmith's works are imperialist and racist ("imperialista", "racista", etc). They are manipulating the information (probably not easily available or even interesting to their readers) just to make their authoritarian point (that other poets need to only target the groups they want us to target and in the exact ways they order us to do).

So I can factually prove that I have not been "more willing to critique" the Mongrel Coalition than Vanessa Place and Kenneth Goldsmith, because my critique of Goldsmith and Place precedes by several years (and number of occasions) my more recent critique of the Mongrel Coalition's Anti-Mexican cartoonish discourse and threats.

This xenophobic violent discourse and tactics by the Mongrel Coalition is what they call "energies".

Really? "Energies", really? "energies" is how this is now called? 

"Energies", OK, so I now understand what you are trying to do in this paragraph: just put reality upside down in order to defend the Mongrel Coalition's Anti-Mexican episode and punish me for addressing it.

Which is also why this piece does not name the Mongrel Coalition but instead describes it as "an anonymous twitter handle".

So let's replace all the disinformation in the paragraph and translate it:

We want to make the point that Low’s piece was not the only article that fails our expectations on how to disaggregate racism, specifically anti-blackness, in poetry. In not-asked-for “solidarity” she pointed to a piece of writing by Heriberto Yépez, a Mexican writer equally willing to critique the xenophobic episodes and threats of the Mongrel Coalition and the anti-black works of Vanessa Place and Kenneth Goldsmith.

Compare, again, to this:

"We want to point out that Low’s piece was not the only article that fails to disaggregate racism, specifically anti-blackness, in poetry. In “solidarity” she pointed to another piece of writing by a non-black poc more willing to critique the energies of an anonymous twitter handle than the anti-black works of two prominent gatekeeping “poets.”" 

I am equally willing to critique imperialism, xenophobia, co-option, in whatever form it takes or by whatever group it comes (Mexico, Spain, the USA, etc) as I have done repeatedly in the past and I will continue to do so.

So if you are really into the fight you say you are, don't replicate typical North-American discourse and violence against others. 

I will not obey you. 

I will I not play by your rules.

Nor will I let you inferiorize me
because if I do
you will inferiorize
others like me
and others
even less
than us
in struggle


May 27, 2015


I will probably be posting some drafts and writings in English in the next days. Some of them were done as materials I was considering as part of my participation in the Berkeley Poetry Conference. Other were done prior to that. I will also try to finish some notes on different recent issues in North-American contemporary poetics before the summer is over and my hands and mind go into Spanish and 24/7 work again.

May 16, 2015


A piece appeared today misinforming audiences in English and in response to my cancellation to participate in the Berkeley Poetry Conference and my denunciation of the paramilitary style group called "Mongrel Coalition": "Goldsmith, Place & What Gringpo Means For Your Reading"

Informed readers and colleagues are going to recognize what these persons are trying to say and do. 

I wil just respond something now, because in the past (because of time issues) I haven't responded to these kind of threats and attacks and maybe that has been a mistake. So I will responde this one now.

As they name very openly shows, "Mexico City Lit" are just another "initiative" to promote a current neoliberal move to return intellectual power to Mexico City, after writers and artists from the North gain relevance during the 1990's and 2000's, which created a situation unfavorable for the government and the system in general, but now the government and Mexico City elites want to change that situation, because they need "neutral" writers to be aligned with the pro-American Mexican government and economic interests.

These agents and writers don't even need to do this consciously, they just need to promote "Mexican" literature which is easier to handle, less radical, and more "global" (the right combination of "Mexican" flavor and fussy convenient geopolitics).

"Mexico City Lit" which are recent agents inside Mexican literature and are mostly about promoting the "right" type of Mexican literature are now trying to misinform American audiences and to discredit me. And of course they need publicity. And know how to get it.

(And for them to hit José Vicente Anaya, an early and mostly marginal translator and poet is just so cowardly of them, just shows the level of mediocrity, ignorance and bad faith they have. The Mongrels are making a huge mistake by supporting and let themselves be supported by these groups, big, BIG mistake).

For them to say I am a pro-conceptualist is just a new low. I am against Conceptualism, can't you even come up with better attacks?

And it the other way around: I criticize the pro-Conceptualism trend in Mexico, South-America and Spain. I warned that what they were trying to do was co-opting Latin American experimentalism and that was imperialist in all direction and I said so (for example here and here and here, and when some of this was published--and I am only posting what can be found in the Internet, which is not the world--the Mongrel didn't even exist).

I am against Conceptualism like a writer should do: through ideas, research, language-work, ethopoetics, art, politics and form.

C'mmon, think a little bit better, this is what they are paying you for, this is what you are trying to make money over, so work harder, you may push your career a bit doing this, and now you are being sloppy. The only readers that are going to believe you is really stupid ones that already hate people like me or don't know anything about Mexican literature. So I am waiting for your second strike. Make it a better one.

I have several times warned about this situation. Anybody can read either my book on Charles Olson in Spanish or English, which is a critique of US imperialism (a book that was attacked, by the way, by another supposedly transnational semi-anonymous group called Il Gruppo).

I've been a long critic of Conceptualism, there is evidence in my interventions in the U.S. and in on-line pieces like these ones.

By saying "We Are Vanessa" I am not defending her, you gringpo morons, but accusing the whole system of being co-opted and being a manipulating system to promote neoliberal agents. Vanessa Place is not Vanessa Place but all of us. You want to single her out because you want to save your own ass.

Have you even read her books?

Who is more neoliberal?

Vanessa Place or a bunch of semi-anonymous writers hiding behind a couple of websites to promote their careers without having the courage to put their names and faces in front of their crappy critique?

Who is more neo-liberal? Vanessa Place's books and work in general or a bunch of people playing hide and seek and whose work campaign reduces to tweets and Facebook posts?

This is why people in the US are angry at me now: because I don't desire their approval either and I am free to speak the truth, and not just simple statements: "Oh, Vanessa Place is Evil and we are the good ones". Por favor, amigos, todo este sistema gringo es puro capitalismo. No fucking-mamen!

No "gringo" no: MUNDIAL.

Is this totally un-ethical piece by this mediocre group different in any way to Vanessa Place openly capitalistic performances? The opportunism of Mexico City Lit is exactly Vanessa Place (minus the work).

So I am against Vanessa Place being reduced to one person. Vanessa Place is this whole trans-national neoliberal, cynical, corrupted, opportunistic, selfie, money-hungry system.

Either you are corrupted and stupid or you are just corrupted.

This Mexico City Lit piece shows again this is now happening at a transnational level. We are now entering a stage where the North is openly saying they are the ones that are defining even literature from the South. They don't care if they turn reality upside down. It's not about that, it just about spreading fascist rumors against dissidents and doing it at the right time.

What does Mexico City Lit want? Translation contracts. That it was this piece is all about. Money: turning "literature" into capital.

Let me tell you this now: I've been fighting hegemony both in Mexico and the USA for 20 years, I've paid the price and I have a commitment to keep this struggle going until I die, so if you think your moves are going to stop me, think twice and gather more people because you need a whole bunch of more people to even think you can give me a fight. I am a warrior from Tijuana. I fight till death.

I've been under attack by Mexico City elite groups before, I am practically banned in a lot of venues, spaces and channels, and I have become practically unnamable for my systematic critique of the corruption in Mexican literature still dominated by Mexico City groups.

But even at that level they have been somewhat unlucky, because the work that I done is done with the head and the heart, so it's not easy for them to just get rid of me, because people who appreciate literature see what my work is about.

I been attacked by American fascist groups before. I am now being attacked by people like the Mongrel Coalition and Mexico City Lit. This is nothing new, just a new wave of people looking for positions and jobs.

When I started to criticize Conceptualism as being a poetic translation of American expansionism (capitalism in general), few wanted to echoed that at the trans-national level, but time proved that my critique and other's was correct. Now some people seem happy with the fascist and misinforming tactics of gringo groups like the Mongrels and now "Mexico City Lit", but again time will show.

Are we as a community going to learn the lessons or not?


Let it be the Mongrels, 'experimentalism', Mexico City, universities, literary festivals, fake independent publishing houses, etc. Co-Option and not "conceptualism" is the program running the system in all the North American region.

You may call Co-Option your "Family", you may call it America, you may call it Mexico, you may call it Nafta, you may call it Mongrel Co-Option, you may call it your paper at the conference, you may call it Facebook, you may call it Experimental, it doesn't matter, Co-Option is just so naturalized in this system, that people run as fast as they can when they think the word is going to be said: CO-OPTION... Co-Option is the real problem.

Conceptualism, via Goldsmith, was co-opted by this system. But this system is not conceptualist, this system is CO-OPTION BY ANY MEANS AVAILABLE. Conceptualism is clearly now becoming a thing of the past, the system of co-option used it and gave it power but the system needed to get rid of it, and now Co-Option is getting the machinery loaded elsewhere.

Co-Option in case you have been too occupied with Facebook (i.e. dislike of your life, especially your job) to think about what is Co-Option, it is about the neutralization of writing's and art's potential subversion: DISSENT. You just find discontent, you find people willing to help co-opt that discontent and the whole fascist social mechanism does the rest. The government just needs to put some money in that, they have permanent channels for that, the people themselves do the rest. Co-Option is the way the Culture machine functions since some decades ago.

Co-Option is about preventing discontent from becoming dangerous dissent. You turn discontent into something people will use to incorporate themselves (thrive, enter or survive) into the Job Market, and you kill it, and capitalism continues.

Don't you see that now gringos are trying to determine what is Southern literature? We are in a new age and it's brutal. Groups like the Mongrels and now this Mexico City Lit initiative are just two examples (and the Mongrels are really more interesting, this Mexico City Lit is just a totally intellectual bankrupt thing. The problem with the Mongrels is that they are neo-liberal at heart and mind and thus lose sight of the real fight because they are engrained in job market's realities and dreams, and are also hanging themselves through their authoritarian, fascists inner-workings).

By doing this, other people get inspired to use the same tactics. The Mongrels are opening the way for other co-optations to happen. Some of them know this because they clearly do this for their personal gain (like Lucas de Lima), others are probably fascist and haven't done the background work on how a deep and real decolonial fight should be done.

They want to get rid of me because I am too critical, too radical for them. I am getting on the way of many groups trying to transform Mexican literature into a neoliberal market for the purpose of neutralizing its potential danger against the spread of American-lead geopolitics even at the writing level. They know Mexican literature still has leftists cells inside of it and they want to eliminate them, that is why they are going after me.

And the Mongrels just got angry at me because I didn't support their fascist and gringo tactics. They are completely unwilling to reflect and say: 'We are sorry, we were xenophobic, we have neo-stalinist impulses in us, we admit it, we should be more careful not to re-produce the White men hate toward others'.

No, they couldn't do that because they are too full of themselves and are lying to themselves, and their supporters just want to look someplace else because this is the American way.

OPEN YOUR EYES, this is happening at all levels of American and Mexican society. Its the neoliberal program, it is part of the structural reforms of everyday life.

And this system is willing to use initiatives, dumb people, people trying to have a place in the job market, this system has no problem using lies, it just needs and wants to destroy dissidents like me for the purposes of their careers and interests. Dissent is where the machine breaks and so dissent is replaced with co-option.

You, who defend the Mongrel Coalition and similar agents this is what you are defending.

You, who are the Mongrel Coalition need to think twice everything you are doing because your fight is very erratic, authoritarian at its core, and the gringo spirit in you is now conducting your fight, and nobody is going to tell you this because the gringo is increasingly happy with you now. Happy, happy, very happy, the Mongrel Gringpo Very Happy!

Finally: Bad news for you! I will not stop!

If you want to stop me, ask the governments and companies behind to do it. You can't.




When the reality of death

and that which you desire not

(((((to speak)))))

reaches your lives

the great weight

of your white masks

will bring

your flesh down



You, the humans




bugs. Death is on our side.